| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Judge Tosses Microsoft Schools Settlement | |
|
||
| Time: 15:12 EST/20:12 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Julien Jay | ||
|
A federal judge in Baltimore on Friday rejected a controversial settlement that would have ended more than 100 private class-action lawsuits against Microsoft. Under terms of the proposed deal, Microsoft would have given $1 billion in money, software, services and training to about 12,500 underprivileged public schools. The company also would have given about 1 million Windows licenses for refurbished PCs donated to the schools. In his opinion, U.S. District Judge J. Fredrick Motz said that the private cases had not been developed far enough to determine the extent of damages that could have been obtained through litigation. Motz also concluded that a private foundation created to administer the school donations would not be adequately funded. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 210 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:14:07 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (206.216.3.134) at 1/11/2002 5:06:53 PM |
|
A lot of people (even the softies) opposed this deal, not because of the predation of the education market, but because the proposal remuneration didn't go to the plaintiffs. The softies were saying it should be tossed, but for all intent and purposes absolved MS of actually proposing the settlement. They refused to suggest that MS should modify their proposal (all cash settlement, give a Bill to the plaintiffs instead of schools,etc) ...
Well, if you check out the Reg story on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23655.html you'll see a few important quotes from Motz. Firstly, he says that this is thinly-valed predation. And that if modified to be a pure cash settlement, he may have been able to accept the agreement. (Which is another reason to vilify MS: why not give a billion dollar cash settlement to those who became members of the class action? Oh, that's right they're trying to look good and socially redeeming WHILE preying upon a market they can't crack, I forgot.) But he also says that the settlement amount is of insuffient value. Did you read that "INSUFFICIENT VALUE." I guess the idea that there's no evidence to support overpricing goes out the window if the Judge says that the settlement doesn't represent the full value of the overcharge, doesn't it? This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, January 11, 2002 at 17:10. |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 1/11/2002 5:29:45 PM |
| If you ask me, the plaintiffs need to get a freaken life... I can't stand this ideal of "Let's sue them so we can make money, even though we don't really deserve it" attitude that has swept through America. |
| #3 By 3339 (206.216.3.134) at 1/11/2002 5:38:11 PM |
|
Ooooooo, this is great! Check out this CNET story:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20020111/tc/judge_tosses_microsoft_schools_settlement_1.html Most of what I had said above is corroborated if not reinforced, but what I didn't know was... That Kollar-Kotelly, when she rejected MS's stalling tactics, she said the further litigation of dissenting states probably would not be separated from the DOJ settlement. This suggests using the 2 proposed remedies as a range to reach one final judgement. And the breakaway state's proposal will be evaluated by K-K so if she agrees with any of the proposals as appropriate, reasonable, corrective, I don't see how she could toss them in a compromise. Looks like MS hasn't settled ANYTHING to me! This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, January 11, 2002 at 17:44. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/11/2002 7:26:15 PM |
|
sodajerk - I think it's funny. You and the other anti-MS contingent have already lost all of your points when the Breakup order was overturned. :)
Anyway, go read the judge's opinion yourself: http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/webdatapages1/news/microsoft011102.pdf When he says that the value is insufficient, he is not talking about in terms of damages. He does mention that neither the value of the settlement or the potential value of damages have been accurately agreed to, but then also points out that is because there has not been proper depositions and cross-examination. More importantly, he is saying that the value is not sufficient in terms of properly funding the proposed foundation, because there is no provision for long term support of this new equipment into the schools, etc. But in the first part of his opinion he points out that many of the arguments against the settlement are no justified. In situations where it is difficult to asses the payment to individual class action participants it is reasonable to propose a settlement which pays society as a whole, such as this one. He also points to problems of impacting competition, but clarifies that problem would be absolved with better funding of the Foundation such that schools could have a better choice of what to use. The reversal is not as strong of a condemation against it as you apparently think it is. It's actually much more favorable to the settlement idea than I expected to see. |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/12/2002 12:36:55 AM |
|
Make up your mind #7 or #8, if that's your real name.
|
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/12/2002 3:40:22 AM |
|
I find it interesting that #7, #8 and #11 have yet to respond to my analysis of the Judge's opinion but instead have responded with non-sensical illogical ramblings.
|
| #7 By 3465 (24.15.187.111) at 1/12/2002 8:30:47 AM |
| #11-Lee Harvey Oswald is still debatable....... |
| #8 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/12/2002 4:17:00 PM |
|
Ok. Let's take a quick poll. How many people here have read, in their entirety, all the transcripts from the original, appellate, and mediatory courts?
Personally, I've read the original and appellate transcripts... so I feel confident in commenting on these and these only. Can those of you spouting conclusions and "support" say that you have more than 3rd party evidence to back up your claims? Have you read the basis for all those 3rd party claims and made your own conclusions? If not, perhaps you should. I've seen countless examples of people on this message board stating claims of fact, which on the surface seem like they could be true since "news" sites like ZDNet and News.com seem to corroborate them, but in-fact are fallacies either knowingly or ignorantly reported by those sites but completely refutable by a simple read of the transcripts. |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/13/2002 2:53:02 AM |
|
#19 - Your post is off topic. Both RMD and myself were talking about this particular court decision, whereas you have gone off on another rant.
Please try again, but stay on topic. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 210 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:14:07 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
